Holland v. Morbark, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 5186,Appellate Case No. 2011-199928 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Andreal Holland, by his Guardian Ad Litem, Peggy Knox, Appellant, v. Morbark, Inc., Precision Husky Corporation, A & K Mulch, LLC, and Watford Industry, Inc., Defendants, Of Whom Morbark, Inc. is the Respondent. |
Andreal Holland, by his Guardian Ad Litem, Peggy Knox, Appellant,
v.
Morbark, Inc., Precision Husky Corporation,
A & K Mulch, LLC, and Watford Industry, Inc., Defendants,
Of Whom Morbark, Inc. is the Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2011-199928
Opinion No. 5186
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Heard September 10, 2013
Filed January 2, 2014
Donald E. Jonas, of Lexington, for Appellant.
Laura Watkins Jordan and Curtis Lyman Ott, of Gallivan, White & Boyd, PA, of Columbia, for Respondent.
WILLIAMS, J.: In this product liability action, Andreal Holland, by and through his guardian ad litem, Peggy Knox, (collectively, Holland) appeals the circuit court's denial of his motion to amend his complaint and the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Morbark, Inc. (Morbark). We affirm.
Page 2
FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 1, 2006, Holland was finishing his shift as a saw operator at A&K Mulch, LLC (A&K Mulch), in Alcolu, South Carolina. Holland's responsibilities included cleaning and changing the cutting knives inside a stationary 58-inch Morbark wood chipper machine1 located outside the mill building. The chipper did not require an operator to cut the wood or oversee its operation. As a result, Holland's contact with the chipper was limited to opening and closing its hood when he cleaned and changed the chipper's knives, typically at midday and at closing.
Prior to closing that day, Holland remotely turned off the power to the chipper and "locked and tagged it out" to begin the fifteen-minute process of stopping the circular disc blades inside the chipper. After a co-worker told him a "tapping" noise was coming from the chipper, he left his work station to determine if anything was wrong with the chipper. Upon investigation, he testified he thought the blade had stopped turning and attempted to find his supervisor to report the issue. When he could not locate his supervisor, Holland returned to the machine, mistakenly determined the blades had stopped turning, and attempted to open the hood access door to the chipper. Holland testified the left pin securing the hood was missing.2 As Holland attempted to remove the right pin and open the hood, the hood came into contact with the interior rotating fan blades. This contact caused the hood to kick back and violently strike Holland in the head.
Holland was rendered unconscious and suffered a crushed eye socket, a broken nose, a broken jaw, and a traumatic brain injury. After being placed on a ventilator and undergoing extensive surgeries, Holland received rehabilitation services, including physical, occupational, and speech therapy. As a result of this accident, the Social Security Administration determined Holland was permanently disabled.
Page 3
In March 2009, Holland filed an "Amended Complaint"3 (complaint) against Morbark, A&K Mulch, Precision Husky, and Watford Industry, Inc.,4 alleging negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty. Morbark removed the case to federal court, but it was subsequently remanded to state court. The parties later consented to a scheduling order for discovery with trial to begin in February 2011.
Holland first moved to amend and supplement his complaint on July 30, 2010. In his amended complaint, he dismissed all defendants except Morbark. Additionally, he withdrew his negligence cause of action but maintained his products liability claims for strict liability and breach of implied warranty. Morbark consented to the motion, and Holland filed consent stipulations of dismissal for all other defendants.
Holland filed a second motion to amend his complaint on January 13, 2011. In his motion, he requested an amendment "to address various developments in the posture of the case since it was filed and to include additional matters learned during discovery." Holland did not attach a proposed amended complaint to this motion. Morbark then filed a motion for summary judgment on February 23, 2011.
Prior to ruling on Morbark's motion for summary judgment, the circuit court heard Holland's motion to amend. At that hearing, Holland argued his newly amended complaint would allege the wood chipper violated Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards and was defective based on the absence of an effective brake to decrease the shut-off time for the chipper. In support of his amendment, Holland presented the deposition testimonies of two experts, Roger Davis5 and David Clement.6
Page 4
The circuit court denied Holland's second motion to amend on April 15, 2011. The court concluded it had the discretion to amend Holland's complaint pursuant to Rule 15, SCRCP, but Morbark proved it would be prejudiced by such an amendment. In so holding, the circuit court found Holland filed this motion following the expiration of all scheduling order deadlines, the conclusion of all liability depositions, and the transfer of the case to the trial roster. Specifically, the circuit court held,
[Holland] has long known about the possible relevance of the OSHA standard and the defect theory based on the absence of a brake because his own experts . . . extensively discussed these two topics during their respective depositions . . .
. . .
Granting [Holland]'s motion would cause significant increases in discovery costs, at least some of which could have been avoided if [Holland] had timely moved. At this point, discovery would need to be re-opened to allow [Holland] to identify an expert regarding the brake option and Morbark to retain a rebuttal expert. Moreover, many of the liability depositions would need to be re-taken to delve into the witness' testimony about, among other things, the sale of the chipper without the optional brake, the costs associated with an optional brake, the operation of the chipper with and without such a brake, and the industry custom or standard regarding a brake.
Page 5
After ruling on Holland's motion to amend, the circuit court issued an order granting summary judgment in Morbark's favor on June 2, 2011. In its order, the circuit court held Holland's design defect claim failed as a matter of law because (1) the chipper was not in the same condition at the time of the accident as when it left Morbark's hands; (2) Morbark's failure to incorporate additional safety features did not render the wood chipper unreasonably dangerous when no other manufacturer in the industry had incorporated the optional safety device advanced by Holland's expert; and (3) Holland failed to prove a reasonable alternative design as required by Branham v. Ford Motor Co., 390 S.C. 203, 701 S.E.2d 5 (2010). In addition, the circuit court dismissed Holland's failure to warn claim because the chipper contained numerous decals and warnings and was accompanied by the operator's manual when Morbark originally sold it. Moreover, because Holland admitted it was dangerous to open the hood before the chipper had stopped turning, the court concluded Morbark could not be liable for failing to warn Holland of a danger he already recognized.
Holland timely moved to reconsider the denial of his motion to amend his complaint as well as the order granting summary judgment. The circuit court denied Holland's motion for reconsideration. Holland appealed.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
I. Did the circuit court err in denying Holland's motion to amend his complaint?
II. Did the circuit court err in granting Morbark's motion for summary judgment?
LAW/ANALYSIS
I. Motion to Amend
Holland first contends the circuit court erred when it denied his second motion to amend because his proposed amendment did not include any new causes of action; rather, it further specified how the wood chipper was defective. Moreover, Holland claims the circuit court denied his second amendment based in part on its erroneous conclusion that the court had already granted Holland's first motion to amend.
In response, Morbark contends Holland was already aware of expert testimony advancing a violation of OSHA yet Holland chose to advance these allegations after the expiration of all scheduling deadlines and the conclusion of all liability depositions. Morbark argues it would be prejudiced by Holland's decision to
Page 6
advance new theories "at the eleventh hour" because it would require the reopening of discovery at a significant cost to Morbark. We agree with Morbark.
We first address Holland's claim that the circuit court failed to grant his first motion to amend. On July 28, 2010, Holland moved to amend his complaint by dismissing all defendants, except Morbark, and by withdrawing his negligence cause of action. No separate written order was entered granting the amendment and dismissal of the other defendants. However, evidence in the record establishes that the circuit court permitted, and the parties consented to, Holland's amendments. First, the circuit court signed all three consent stipulations of...
To continue reading
Request your trial